Legal Beagle by Graeme Edgeler

Read Post

Legal Beagle: Election 2017: the Special Votes

100 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last

  • Barry97,

    I have nothing against the others, but I would really like to see Golriz Ghahraman in parliament.

    Since Jun 2014 • 3 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Dalziel,

    I still don't get why the print edition of the SST has National's tally at 1.2 million - and they don't seem to have the Party Vote tally anywhere, yet have a page showing all the electorate results - do they not understand MMP - or is it me?

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 7565 posts Report Reply

  • linger,

    How about effects of special votes on electorate results that could affect the overall makeup of Parliament? The Maori electorates typically have more specials, so might still be in play (though since specials tend to favour both Labour and Maori, I'd guess a meaningful shift in the overall result would be unlikely).

    Tokyo • Since Apr 2007 • 1764 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Tinkler,

    Does appear to be a low voter turn out. I made a few guesses on specials and concluded the same seat changes as Graeme. Though my percentages vary a little different.

    Christchurch • Since Nov 2010 • 13 posts Report Reply

  • Carl Anderson,

    FYI I believe the next person on the Labour list is Angie Warren Clark, not Helen White.

    Auckland • Since Sep 2017 • 3 posts Report Reply

  • Tom Semmens, in reply to Barry97,

    I have nothing against the others, but I would really like to see Golriz Ghahraman in parliament.

    I wouldn't, but only because such a talent would be largely wasted twiddling her thumbs in the Greens and she needs to be snaffled by Labour and given a high list place next time.

    Sevilla, Espana • Since Nov 2006 • 2153 posts Report Reply

  • linger, in reply to Tom Semmens,

    Well, if we're indulging in wild speculation, imagine this far-fetched scenario: Winston chooses to remain outside government, leaving National scrambling to make an agreement with the Greens. That'd be an entertaining three years.

    Tokyo • Since Apr 2007 • 1764 posts Report Reply

  • Graeme Edgeler, in reply to Ian Tinkler,

    Does appear to be a low voter turn out.

    Pretty high in world terms, and up on last time it seems. Almost 80%!

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 3188 posts Report Reply

  • Graeme Edgeler, in reply to Carl Anderson,

    FYI I believe the next person on the Labour list is Angie Warren Clark, not Helen White.

    So do I. I blame the fact it was 4:30 when I finished.

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 3188 posts Report Reply

  • Carl Anderson,

    Graeme I admire your dedication to the cause!

    Auckland • Since Sep 2017 • 3 posts Report Reply

  • Ross Mason,

    The US has infiltrated us. Hearing the suspect truthiness and responding "La la la la not listening".

    EB: "Graeme, I admire your dedication to the cause!"
    Lost was it?

    Upper Hutt • Since Jun 2007 • 1582 posts Report Reply

  • simon g,

    Thanks for doing this, Graeme.

    A point overlooked by many of the talking heads is that numbers can and do change during a term. Parties break up (NZ First, Alliance in the first two MMP terms), parties are formed when MPs break away (the Maori Party, Mana), individuals leave parties to become independent (pushed, or jumping), by-elections, etc.

    This is relevant now because a putative Lab-NZF-Green deal would require Winston to keep all his caucus on board, and given past behaviour, there's a non-zero chance that some hitherto unknown NZF MP will be seduced across the floor by a bauble or quit the party on "principle". Not tomorrow, but next year, who knows?

    And if there's a NZF-Nat deal, the anti-Nat numbers need to increase to stop any maverick from becoming Alamein Kopu when NZF quit the coalition over the [Insert Name Later] scandal of 2018. (I know she was Alliance, but the point stands - the party-hopping prevention law died years ago).

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1216 posts Report Reply

  • Katharine Moody,

    The other really interesting stats I'll be keen to see are the party donation electoral returns;

    http://www.elections.org.nz/parties-candidates/registered-political-parties/party-donations/party-donations-year/2014-party

    I suspect the winner last night were the individual donors across all the opposition parties, many of whom likely donated to more than one opposition party.

    They, I suspect won the majority of New Zealand back from the big money end of town.

    Palmerston North • Since Sep 2014 • 764 posts Report Reply

  • tussock,

    So, roughly, Greens will need ...
    2 - 6% of specials to hold at 7.
    7 - 11% of specials to gain an 8th. <- expected.
    12 - 17% of specials to gain a 9th too. <- hmm.
    18% of specials to make 10 seats.

    Labour will need ...
    34 - 39% of specials to hold at 45.
    40 - 44% of specials to gain a 46th. <- expected.
    45% of specials to gain a 47th too.

    Labour-Green are somewhat inversely correlated, so it's hard to see +3 seats between them unless first time voter turnout was way up.

    National needs ...
    30 - 34% of specials to scrape 55. <- hmm.
    35 - 39% of specials to stop on 56. <- expected.
    40 - 44% of specials to manage 57.
    45% of specials to hold at 58. <- No.

    And for completeness ...

    NZF needs ...
    3 - 7% of specials to hold 9. <- Yes.
    8% of specials to get a 10th. <- No.

    ACT needs ...
    0 - 5% of specials to hold 1. <- Yes.

    Since Nov 2006 • 587 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Dalziel, in reply to Katharine Moody,

    the party donation electoral returns;

    I’d be interested to know if National paid to hire Sky City venue for ‘faux victory’ bash last night…

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 7565 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Dalziel,

    I also note that Nicky Wagner never covered up the large picture of her face and National logo outside her electoral office (Kilmore St, Chchch) on Saturday…

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 7565 posts Report Reply

  • Jim Cathcart,

    Probably a bit deceptive to to base predictive "modelling" on something as crude as past movements across one sample set, unless there is a good assumption to support why.

    Since Nov 2006 • 225 posts Report Reply

  • Kumara Republic,

    According to the Electoral Commission, total turnout after special votes are counted is around 78.8%. Good by global standards, but NZ really should aim for 80-90%.

    Voter turnout for the 2017 General Election is estimated to be 78.8% of those enrolled as at 6pm Friday 22 September. This compares with a final 77.9% turnout of those enrolled in 2014.

    The southernmost capital … • Since Nov 2006 • 5341 posts Report Reply

  • Dennis Frank,

    So the youthquake came in at 0.9%. Kinda like a tsunami coming in here six inches high after travelling across the Pacific. The Couldn't Care Less Party measures 21.2%, coming third after National & Labour. No point voting when the same old shit happens regardless who wins, eh?

    New Zealand • Since Jun 2016 • 153 posts Report Reply

  • Carl Anderson, in reply to Jim Cathcart,

    I don't think it is fair to call it deceptive. Graeme has been upfront about the method he used, and acknowledged its limitations, so how is he deceiving anyone?

    Auckland • Since Sep 2017 • 3 posts Report Reply

  • Jim Cathcart, in reply to Carl Anderson,

    Yes, poor choice of word on my part. What I was trying to point out is that I don't think it is prudent to predict directional trends from these kind of data sets, unless there is a strong argument to do so.

    Since Nov 2006 • 225 posts Report Reply

  • Caleb D'Anvers, in reply to Ross Mason,

    The US has infiltrated us. Hearing the suspect truthiness and responding “La la la la not listening”.

    Yeah. I was thinking something along the same lines reading this utterly sick-making apologia from Simon Wilson in the Spinoff:

    Now we know what it takes to win.
    […]
    … just lie. But what’s more important than the lie is the confidence with which you refuse to accept you are wrong. National’s claim that Labour had an $11 billion hole in its budget was preposterous nonsense, but its steely resolve in never backing off, even a single inch, gave it enormous authority. Toughing it out is a political virtue.

    In his speech last night, English said the attacks on the government had been hard, but “the more of it there was, the better we responded”. He was talking about the way they just stared down all the accusations of lies and scaremongering and he was right.

    So moral authority, "political virtue" even, stems from the ability to knowingly lie, and then see those lies amplified by “friendly” media? Holding to a line of systematic falsehood engineered for you by a PR firm is now “toughing it out”? English was “right” to lie, because the ends justify the means?

    People are just lapping this stuff up on Facebook, but the conclusions being drawn here make me very uneasy.

    London SE16 • Since Mar 2008 • 482 posts Report Reply

  • linger, in reply to Caleb D'Anvers,

    I have spent the last day trying to explain the results to my colleagues in Japan in terms of “Well, we don’t know yet, but the most likely outcome seems to be that the Lying Bastard Party will try to form a coalition with the Racist Party. … Yes, I know, I thought we were better than Australia too.”

    Tokyo • Since Apr 2007 • 1764 posts Report Reply

  • tussock,

    There's some fairly new science to it, Curia runs it for National, turns out you can just say certain things and get a fair chunk of people to change their opinion. You test a bunch of things to say, on people of one opinion, and count how many of them change that opinion, and for most things you can find a short phrase to tip people over on any subject.

    Most of the population isn't vulnerable to it, but enough are that if you figure out what to say and just keep saying it, there's like a three-week window where you can shift a vote or whatever.

    The Brexit thing was so many or other hundred billion pounds extra for the health system if you vote yes on Brexit, and it swung about 5% on that and they won. Completely unconnected with reality, but that's not important. The MSM largely tried to not push it, they had to run cars with loudspeakers and stuff, but it still works.

    For the Nats here it was, in a few different ways of saying it, that Labour was either under-selling how much tax they'd put on or over-selling how much they'd deliver with government spending, that the two didn't match up, it couldn't really be that easy, and they jumped a good 5% on that.

    It works, and it will always work forever now that people know how to do it reliably. Trump in the US hammered on the Clinton emails, because that dropped Clinton a couple %, and that was enough.

    The only thing you can do against it is find something to say to change them back. Not the truth, not policy, none of that shit matters for people who are persuadable by short phrases unconnected with reality. Research your own magic words and just repeat them ad nauseam, and make sure the delivery doesn't put off your more stable voters.

    Since Nov 2006 • 587 posts Report Reply

  • steven crawford, in reply to tussock,

    Just working up some magic words ideas. Housing crisis - housing market- realestate bubble- um, snakes and ladders?

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 3869 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.